What if Hooker was in command at Gettysburg?

[gary]

Kidd raises it in his memoirs. Never even considered it before he raised the issue. He points out that Hooker was more aggressive than Meade and that even if Meade was more aggressive, considering that he was appointed in command shortly before the battle, he didn't even know his staff that well and couldn't have anyway. Thoughts and opinions please.

 

[johan_steele]

Hooker at Gettysburg, I think it would have been a mess. His rep as "fighting Joe" seems to have been overrated especially when compared to his performance at Chatanooga & the Atlanta campaign.

I think Meade did a stellar job w/ the situation at hand. I remember reading that Meade was having problems correlating the fact that he was commanding the whole AoP and not just a Corps... He was an excellent Corps commander and he did quite well as an Army commander.

A more thought provokikng what if might be if Hancock had been in command of the AoP instead of Meade. i don't know if he ever had the right connections to put in charge of the AoP but I've always felt Hancock was a damned good general.

 

[titans]

Hooker at Gettysburg? Does that not have other implications? In my mind, Hooker would have had to have been successful @ Chancellorsville. In light of this, would the battle have even been fought? Would Hooker not have been on his way to Richmond?

Have a Great Day!

 

[nicolo]

Hooker remained in command of the AoP after Chancellorsville, he was removed when it became obvious to Washington that he was seeking to avoid direct confrontation with the AoNV.
Hooker had lost his confidence, at least as an army commander. He soon regained it as a corps commander.
No way Hooker could have fought effectively, with his confidence in himself, as army commander, shattered.

 

[jackbluelight]

In some theoretical world if Hooker was at Gettysburg, he would have been soundly whooped by the wiley, old, gray fox.

 

[bill_russell]

In some theoretical world if Hooker was at Gettysburg, he would have been soundly whooped by the wiley, old, gray fox.

No doubt about it. Hooker would have been self-conscious and second-guessing himself while Lee, without Stuart, would have been running circles around him. Hooker's own officers, but for Sickles and a few others, hated or distrusted him. A recipe for disaster.

 

[ewc]

For the longest time, i believed that it was a shame Hooker was removed before he could fight Gettysburg. i always thought that given his chance to make reparations for Chancellorsville, he would have proven as effective as Meade in command, if not moreso for having the reins of command well under control. Rethinking the issue however, I have concluded that Hooker might have become 'gunshy' around Lee, especially the nearer he came to Halleck and the pressures from Washington in his rear. What's more, whereas Meade need only handle his army professionally and limit mistakes before Lee, Hooker only needing to do the same, i am afraid that because he knew he no longer commanded the confidence of his corps commanders, may have tried a Hood-like Franklin stunt to show who was boss. Meade, on the other hand, being cautious and new to command, needed to rely on his commanders' judgments, indeed, he knew he could trust their professional decisions. This helped lead to Union victory at Gettysburg. Conversely, Hooker showed at Chancellorsville that he did not rely on his subordinates views, which helped him lose that battle.

Moreover, Hooker's contributions to the Gettysburg Campaign should not be overlooked. His loosing of his cavalry on Stuart and shadowing the Confederates was superb, as well as his rapid movement north with the corps, crossing the Potomac and sheilding Washington, all worthy of the highset praise.

 

[whitworth]

The decision on Meade

The best decision Lincoln may have ever made was replacing Hooker with Meade.
Meade had nothing to prove. Getting the command late, he could not contemplate a full scale assault of Lee at Gettysburg.
Meade played conservative at Gettysburg; Hooker might have attacked.

 

[FSPowers]

Hooker in command at Gettysburg? He would have been outflanked like at Chancellorsville.

 

[milhistbuff1]

I don't believe hooker would have been too gunshy. When D N Couch stepped down, the much more aggressive and potentially insubordinate Hancock would have succeeded him to corp command. Hancock followed through on his victories, something Couch was unwilling to do. (see Stephen Sears book on Chancellorsville when hooker is stunned by cannon shot hitting his HQ) By Gettysburg, Hooker's inclination to prevent another defeat would have complemented Hancocks aggressive yet prudent fighting style.

 

[Jamieva]

Disaster. He would've been a disaster.

 

[nbforrest]

He may have been OK just sitting there on the high ground given his numbers. Meade probably was an improvement, certainly in the Gettysburg circumstances. But then again, look what happened at Chancellorsville...
I doubt there would have been a huge disaster though...just too many Yanks.
Hooker did fine out west...he was a good subordinate commander, which tends to get overlooked.

Respectfully

 

[ole]

Tend to agree. Too many Yanks. It would have taken Braxton Bragg to lose under those circumstances.
Ole

 

[milhistbuff1]

then again, one ill timed or placed attack can destroy an Army AOT at Franklin-Nashville etc

 

[samgrant]

Meade was a very good general. He never got the respect he deserved. A lot of that was political bickering amonst the Union brass.

I'll take Meade over Hooker anyplace, anytime.

(Tho Hooker had his moments!)

 

[nbforrest]

then again, one ill timed or placed attack can destroy an Army AOT at Franklin-Nashville etc

Yes, but the AOP was not in that situation...sitting on high ground bristling with artillery and outnumbered the opponent. Not really the same situation that fool Hood put the AOT into at Nashville.

Respectfully

 

[nbforrest]

Meade was a very good general. He never got the respect he deserved. A lot of that was political bickering amonst the Union brass.

I'll take Meade over Hooker anyplace, anytime.

(Tho Hooker had his moments!)

Now, this is taking the thread in another direction, but I will comment a bit on Meade.
He has gone down in my estimation as an army commander. Was he the best commander the AOP had? Absolutely. But that is not saying a lot. I don't think he really had the energy or skills to carry out an effective offensive. One could blame others for Mine Run (although Meade certainly did not do great) but as I read more about the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, I don't think Meade ever really got the hang of taking the offensive. He had Grant to push him forward, but Meade just wasn't very good at it. Was Meade incompetent? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Solid and dependable as a corps commander but a rather mediocre army commander. Now, the interesting question is: how much was Meade hindered or aided by Grant? Would he have done better or worse on his own?

Respectfully

 

[whitworth]

Hooker at Gettysburg?

I doubt he would allow the 11th Corps under Howard, to be a lead corps into Gettysburg.